PIX 2015
Bjorn_L

Bjorn_L

Lives in United States Seattle, WA, United States
Works as a IT Director / Engineer
Joined on Jul 29, 2009
About me:

Current Cameras:
Nikon d750 with a number of lenses.
As well as a Panasonic Gh3 and Sony RX10 which I use mostly for videos.
Previous Cameras:
A few Minolta film cameras (and 1 Film Canon). Several DSLRs including Nikon d90, d300, d700, d800, a Minolta 7d, Canon 500d (aka T1i), and a close to a dozen bridge and pocket cameras. My favorite was the Minolta 7i.

Comments

Total: 139, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

This is a complete bone-head move. But one I suspect can (and likely will) eventually be addressed with a firmware update.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 2, 2015 at 18:51 UTC as 176th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Tieu Ngao: I think the price of 200-500 is attractive, and that's probably because of the competition from the Tamron and Sigma C 150-600.
I hope that the new Nikon will optically outperform the Tamron and Sigma to justify the $400 and 300gr difference.

I'd say most of the cost is based on the different optics and different focus systems. Cost and weight are not reliable indicators of sealed not sealed.
And as I posted directly above:
As for moisture vs weather sealing.... water penetrates faster than dust and rain is generally comprised of water. So not sure what their claims do or do not mean.
But, I'm not making those claims only passing them along. I contacted Tamron for clarification. They've been timely in past replies. If they are again, I'll pass along their comments.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 5, 2015 at 03:31 UTC
In reply to:

Bjorn_L: Disappointed that sealed remains the exception not the rule. Particularly the super-telephoto.
Adding weather sealing to most lenses would seem to be a low cost option and an easy way to add differentiation.
I'm looking forward to the review of the 24-70 VR. Very curious why it commands such a price premium over the excellent out going model and the very strong contender from Tamron.

As for moisture vs weather sealing.... water penetrates faster than dust and rain is generally comprised of water. So not sure what their claims do or do not mean.
But, I'm not making those claims only passing them along. I contacted Tamron for clarification. They've been timely in past replies. If they are again, I'll pass along their comments.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 5, 2015 at 03:26 UTC
In reply to:

Bjorn_L: Disappointed that sealed remains the exception not the rule. Particularly the super-telephoto.
Adding weather sealing to most lenses would seem to be a low cost option and an easy way to add differentiation.
I'm looking forward to the review of the 24-70 VR. Very curious why it commands such a price premium over the excellent out going model and the very strong contender from Tamron.

I don't think it adds much to the cost. Both Sigma and Tamron offer sealing on their 150-600 options. In the case of the Tamron, it costs less than the Nikon.
From the Tamron website:
Moisture-resistant construction
Moisture-resistant construction helps prevent moisture from penetrating the lens.
Also, I know from having spoken with Nikon about this, that they already include most of what it would take to seal a lens on every lens. For example some sort of penetration sealing on the buttons and the front element as well as a rear gasket.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 4, 2015 at 19:04 UTC
In reply to:

Tieu Ngao: I think the price of 200-500 is attractive, and that's probably because of the competition from the Tamron and Sigma C 150-600.
I hope that the new Nikon will optically outperform the Tamron and Sigma to justify the $400 and 300gr difference.

According to multiple reviews the Tamron is also weather sealed. for example:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-150-600mm-f-5-6.3-Di-VC-USD-Lens.aspx
From the Tamron website:
Moisture-resistant construction
Moisture-resistant construction helps prevent moisture from penetrating the lens.
So sounds to me as if it has sealing.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 4, 2015 at 18:13 UTC
In reply to:

Tieu Ngao: I think the price of 200-500 is attractive, and that's probably because of the competition from the Tamron and Sigma C 150-600.
I hope that the new Nikon will optically outperform the Tamron and Sigma to justify the $400 and 300gr difference.

For openers the Nikon is not sealed and Sigma and Tamron offer sealed units. It will have to really out perform them to be interesting to me, and even then I'll probably pass because I am out in the elements from time to time.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 4, 2015 at 17:11 UTC

Disappointed that sealed remains the exception not the rule. Particularly the super-telephoto.
Adding weather sealing to most lenses would seem to be a low cost option and an easy way to add differentiation.
I'm looking forward to the review of the 24-70 VR. Very curious why it commands such a price premium over the excellent out going model and the very strong contender from Tamron.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 4, 2015 at 17:09 UTC as 31st comment | 6 replies
On Nikon offers AF-S DX Nikkor 16-80mm F2.8-4E ED VR article (331 comments in total)
In reply to:

Dennis Linden: No WR sealing, no sale. Why go through all this trouble and not put a little dust resistance in there.

@pkosewski
The Nikon 24-70 is just bullet proof. Nothing better on the market. It is very well sealed.
The Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 adds stabilization (VC) and is also sealed, I would trust the Nikon to stand up to more abuse but think either one would work for most users.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 2, 2015 at 18:57 UTC
On Nikon offers AF-S DX Nikkor 16-80mm F2.8-4E ED VR article (331 comments in total)
In reply to:

Dennis Linden: No WR sealing, no sale. Why go through all this trouble and not put a little dust resistance in there.

Dennis,
All current Nikon lenses have some sealing. I wrote to Nikon a while ago to ask about it and they said brief use in a light rain would not be a problem. The rear has a gasket, the buttons are sealed and the rest has 'some sealing' and while not sealed like their professional lenses offer some resistance to the elements.
If you cut through the marketing (and my potential mangling the quote a bit), you're left with this:
No real sealing, but some limited sealing is there. FWIW, I'm disappointed and surprised this is not sealed. It leaves room for Tokina, Sigma, Tamron to offer a major advantage to out-door buffs such as myself.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 2, 2015 at 16:59 UTC
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-G7 offers 4K video article (128 comments in total)
In reply to:

mpgxsvcd: I am not seeing a lot to dislike about this camera. They would sell a lot more of these if they advertised them more and also sold them in stores like Best Buy right from day one. As it stands right now Canon will sell many times as many T6s/T6i cameras as Panasonic will sell G7 cameras.

That is also despite the fact that the Canon cameras had a significant defect in a large portion of their initial shipments(Which they addresses quickly), the T6s only does 5 FPS vs. the 7 FPS for the G7, The G7 is cheaper, and the G7 does 4K @ 30 FPS video vs just 1080p @ 30 FPS for the Canon cameras.

Panasonic’s issue is not that they don’t make great cameras. There issue is that not enough people even know they make cameras.

Steelhead3,
4k is not talking over. It remains a bit-player. In new TV sales it is less than 5%, much less. Also even if this doubles every year (from the current ~1-2%) how long before it becomes a significant player in the marketshare? How many years after that do you think 4k content will be available? No matter how you choose to do the math, it a decade or more.
Then there is the 4k content from the camera. I am quite sure most of those who say 4k is the future have never bothered to process 4k video files or paid any attention to the storage requirements. Storage is more than 4x. Processing time (on a typical PC) is close to 10x as the PC will be overwhelmed by the data size. Then there is the question of what will you use to play the darn thing. Oh, well we'll just make another 1080p version of the file too. You think a family videographer wants to add a 6TB disk per year, and spend multiple days on every single file?

Direct link | Posted on May 18, 2015 at 15:44 UTC
On Hands-on with the Pentax K-3 II article (525 comments in total)

What a fantastic sounding, innovative camera. I love the use of pixel shift to get a foveon image quality and reduction in high ISO noise. I also think the GPS function to reduce/eliminate star trails is also very clever.
I don't see the elimination of popup flash as a bad thing. Those things are just red-eye inducing, shadow ruining things as far as I'm concerned. They should develop a low cost flash-controller similar to the Nikon SU800 (which is not cheap). This would offset the loss of a built in command mode and reduce the need for a 2-flash minimum to have off camera flash.
I can't remember the last time I used the on board flash on a camera.... I "think" I did it once this past year when the batteries in my external flash died... I made a crude paper reflector/diffuser to reduce the nasties a built in adds to an image.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 23, 2015 at 12:24 UTC as 66th comment
On Video Field Test: Tamron SP 15-30mm F2.8 Di VC USD article (92 comments in total)

Nice video, I enjoyed watching it. Which Nikon did you use?

Direct link | Posted on Apr 14, 2015 at 23:55 UTC as 42nd comment | 1 reply
On Samsung NX1 Review preview (1252 comments in total)
In reply to:

Bjorn_L: You say it pulls away from other aps-c cameras but in viewing the comparison in raw and compare the d7200 and nx1 they seem close to identical even at the higher ISOs where you state the NX1 pulls away. The d7200 and nx1 seem about 1/2 stop better at ISO than the other two (in RAW).
I then went to DXO to see what the sensor is actually doing and the scores are up for the NX1 but not the d7200 so I used the d5500. In the base scores the the d5500 did better. I'm not saying the NX1 is not a very good camera, but it seems you went a little overboard in praising the sensor.
http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D5500-versus-Samsung-NX1___998_976

Rishi,
It does make sense. Thanks for the clarification.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 9, 2015 at 23:13 UTC
On Samsung NX1 Review preview (1252 comments in total)
In reply to:

Bjorn_L: You say it pulls away from other aps-c cameras but in viewing the comparison in raw and compare the d7200 and nx1 they seem close to identical even at the higher ISOs where you state the NX1 pulls away. The d7200 and nx1 seem about 1/2 stop better at ISO than the other two (in RAW).
I then went to DXO to see what the sensor is actually doing and the scores are up for the NX1 but not the d7200 so I used the d5500. In the base scores the the d5500 did better. I'm not saying the NX1 is not a very good camera, but it seems you went a little overboard in praising the sensor.
http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D5500-versus-Samsung-NX1___998_976

I disagree about DXO. It is the defacto standard and there is a reason sites like this one site it in their reviews. However I didn't just use use DXO I also used the comparison tool within the review to give it the eye-ball test against one of the cameras they mentioned in their conclusion, and in neither case did I see the NX1 pulling away in fact it was not better than the d7200. Whenever I see very enthusiastic in a review I always want to check it to see for myself. The fact that I can not is why I asked the question. Hoping they will answer.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 9, 2015 at 22:47 UTC
On Samsung NX1 Review preview (1252 comments in total)

You say it pulls away from other aps-c cameras but in viewing the comparison in raw and compare the d7200 and nx1 they seem close to identical even at the higher ISOs where you state the NX1 pulls away. The d7200 and nx1 seem about 1/2 stop better at ISO than the other two (in RAW).
I then went to DXO to see what the sensor is actually doing and the scores are up for the NX1 but not the d7200 so I used the d5500. In the base scores the the d5500 did better. I'm not saying the NX1 is not a very good camera, but it seems you went a little overboard in praising the sensor.
http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D5500-versus-Samsung-NX1___998_976

Direct link | Posted on Apr 9, 2015 at 22:03 UTC as 249th comment | 7 replies
On Opinion: Why the Canon XC10 is a big deal article (814 comments in total)

This reads like it was written by a fanboy not an analyst.

If you need 4k, then the lack of stabilization would seem to be a deal killer on this. Particularly when combined with the slow lens. The Gh4 simply seems a better solution. It too has all-in-one solutions which cover the same range but don't give up stabilized 4k video. Sealed lenses too, if you want that. Plus you have the option of using f/1.4 or even f/0.95 lenses and high end add-ons. Ultimately the gh4 seems to be a better solution and while you can add many $1000s in add-ons to it, to achieve the modest specs of the xc10 you could do so at a lower price point.

If you don't need 4k video (and very few really do) then the Sony rx10 seems a better solution. The lens takes in 4x as much light at the long end. It is wider and about as long. The rx10 has the same DR & bit rate, stabilized zoom, sealed lens.

I fail to see how this is worth considering by anyone not just in love with it because of the brand.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 8, 2015 at 20:39 UTC as 209th comment | 5 replies
On Lensbaby introduces Velvet 56mm f/1.6 article (166 comments in total)

Hmm... don't understand this lens at all.

Blurry/Soft is not hard to achieve. It is not desirable in a lens.

A lens which is intentionally soft is odd. The same effect can be applied in post processing or just by buying the cheapest lens you can and screwing up the front element or putting a nasty filter in the front.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 7, 2015 at 22:35 UTC as 41st comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

Bjorn_L: There are numerous HDMI streamers out there. This is the only one with a monthly fee or advertising. Go to amazon.com and search for HDMI transmitter. Or just look at Actiontec brand as an example.

Also it occurred to me that I know someone doing what you describe. They have no commercials and no monthly fee either. I could do this with the actiontec or the other network device I use since all it takes is a PC with a HDMI in and a video capture card of somekind which the livestream would also require.

In the end the livestream is more costly, less capable and about as pointless a product as I have ever seen.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 6, 2015 at 18:25 UTC
In reply to:

Bjorn_L: There are numerous HDMI streamers out there. This is the only one with a monthly fee or advertising. Go to amazon.com and search for HDMI transmitter. Or just look at Actiontec brand as an example.

What I do is live streaming. But, I use a different (similarly priced) device to move data across a public network, but it is based on HDMI on the ends. I prefer the actiontec because it is wireless. But I could use either one and a tablet to share the screen as well. But what I use wouldn't allow adding graphics, at least I don't I think so, but that is not a goal for me and so I never tried.

But still actiontec (and others) at least support 1080p and HAVE NO COMMERCIALS and NO MONTHLY FEE. While the above product is more costly only 1080i (which would seem to belie your highend claims as 720p/1080i is not high end to me).

Direct link | Posted on Mar 6, 2015 at 18:15 UTC
In reply to:

Bjorn_L: There are numerous HDMI streamers out there. This is the only one with a monthly fee or advertising. Go to amazon.com and search for HDMI transmitter. Or just look at Actiontec brand as an example.

I use actiontecs to stream directly from a Camera to multiple TVs. I remote control the camera via a tablet. How do you see the livestream broadcaster being used? Since to me it seems it would be used in exactly the same way.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 6, 2015 at 17:58 UTC
Total: 139, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »